4.2 Article

Inositol hexaphosphate-loaded red blood cells prevent in vitro sickling

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 50, 期 10, 页码 2176-2184

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2010.02663.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. French ANR (Agence Nationale pour la Recherche) [ANR-08-BIOT-011-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Hypoxia is a major cause of painful vaso-occlusive crisis in sickle cell disease (SCD). Simple transfusion and red blood cell (RBC) exchange are commonly used as preventive therapies whose aim is to dilute hemoglobin (Hb)S-containing RBCs (SS-RBCs) with normal RBCs (AA-RBCs) to prevent sickling. We hypothesized that the effectiveness of transfusion could be improved by the encapsulation of inositol hexaphosphate (IHP), an allosteric Hb effector, in transfused AA-RBCs. Indeed, apart from their diluting effect on SS-RBCs, IHP-loaded RBCs (IHP-RBCs) with increased oxygen release capacity could palliate in vivo oxygen deprivation and reduce sickling. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The study was designed to investigate the therapeutic effect of IHP-RBCs transfusion on in vitro sickling of SS-RBCs collected from 20 SCD patients. Patients' RBCs were diluted with various proportions of IHP-RBCs or AA-RBCs (processed or stored RBCs as controls). Resulting suspensions were subjected to deoxygenation followed by partial reoxygenation at 5% oxygen. Sickling was evaluated by microscopy. RESULTS: Stored RBCs (50% dose) used to mimic simple transfusion exhibited a poor antisickling effect (5.6%) and a low response rate (65%). In contrast, IHP-RBCs treatment was seven times more effective resulting in 35% of sickling reduction and a 94% response rate. Sickling was inhibited in a dose-dependent manner: 9.9, 25.1, and 35.0% for IHP-RBCs in percentages of 10, 30, and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that IHP-RBCs prevent in vitro sickling and suggest that it could improve conventional transfusion therapy in terms of transfused volume, frequency, and efficacy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据